“On Tuesday, Sept 11, the anniversary of the WTC terrorist attacks, Ron Paul is giving a keynote policy address at the influential Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C.His topic is “A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy.”
If you wanted to quibble, you could. Personally, I would have preferred it to read,
“A Rational Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy.”
Or “A Constitutional Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy.”
Because there are traditions and traditions. And while those of us who are intellectually of a conservative bent tend to give any tradition the benefit of the doubt, it will not do to consider non-intervention a good by virtue only of its history, when history is composted with the bones of institutions that rotted from the inside. Traditions are prone to developing hardening of the categories – as some wit noted – and if we classify non-intervention as one, then we are surely inviting some clever update of it. We are asking for the Monroe Doctrine to be turned into Manifest Destiny
— with gender neutrality and racial sensitivity thrown in to certify it kosher.
But the Constitution of America – whatever its alleged and real flaws (and it isn’t free of them) – has been a guiding light to this nation and countless others not because it is a tradition but because the principles it embodies are rational, in the highest sense of the word, and because they are worthy of emulation. The Constitution is universal in its appeal. But it is universal because its persuades by its reasonableness, not because it imposes itself over the breadth of the globe as the law of an empire.
The distinction is of some importance today.
Because there are those who demand exactly the opposite – an interventionist foreign policy – for exactly the same reason — universality. You could call them ‘liberventionists.’ They are the humanitarian bombers, like Mr. Hitchens…..
More at Lew Rockwell.
From my mailbag:
“All I can say is ” Wonderful Article” .
Sometimes I feel like a Rebel, and sit and wonder if God sees me as a Rebel as well for not blindly following along with the Gvt. Inc.
I have my faith that says to allow each person the right to live their lives as they wish, and My own Constitution that says that I have the same rights, as long as I don’t infringe on others rights, but my liberties are dwindling in number as the Gov Grows in Power, and I have never given up any of my rights, yet I have fewer rights now then I did when I was 20 years younger.
Does it make me a Rebel, a Terrorist, to want to be left alone by the Gov. so I can live my life as I see fit, as long as I do it in a manor that doesn’t hurt anyone else, or infringe on their rights to do the same?
Thanks for such a thought provoking article.
Sincerely
VP
And a call for more activism from another reader:
Dear Ms. Rajiva —
Thank you very much for writing those badly-needed words. While I personally prefer a little more active tone (I like to avoid words like “reviiving” or “restoring” because it puts me in mind of the sad, futile way that Romans were always planing to restore the Republic) like “Bill of Rights Enforcemen”, nevertheless, yours is the clearest vision I’ve seen so far among the writers I read regularly.
I plan to get your books as soon as I’m finished my my own current project.
Thanks again,
LNS
Hi Lila,
I guess Lew liked your piece. I did as well.
Best,
JB
Nice article, i heard that ron paul didnt fair to well on o reilly though .
AD
From a reader in the real estate world:
Dear Ms. Rajiva:
I don’t expect you to re-call,but we have corresponded in the past about Abu Ghraib.I became acquainted with your work on Counterpunch.I noticed your most recent book Mobs,etc.
I’ve recently re-read Kindleberger’s tome and his stages progression reminds me of a bad patriarchal country song
1.Dislocation-Just got outta prison,or,Mama died(her fault),or Gal done left me(no fault of mine)
2.Speculation-I knowed a lot o’ women
3.Mania-but I knew you was the one for me
4.Revulsion-I did her in when I done caught her with my best friend
5.Panic-I’m ready to pay the price and meet the Lord
Am I on to something?
PW
From a Libertarian party candidate, businessman and activist:
Lila: Thanks for a thoughtful piece.
See my site below.
I’m trying too!
Best regards,
DR
http://www.Forward-USA.org/
And a thoughtful reader on the difference between a country of “law” and one of “laws”:
Dear Lila Rajiva:
Thank you for your article.
You make a good point regarding how tradition can either become hardened or invite new and updated versions of the tradition that completely alter the tradition.
It does seem to me that at times it is essential, in our understandings of the Constitution that we recognize that the constitution represents several centuries of traditions, as well as the simple everyday concerns of various statesmen (men representing various states) seeking to insure their rights as states compared to other states and the new form of federal government being established. Such framers of the Constitution as James Madison, were as deeply concerned with the possibility of a democracy as a return to monarchy. The Bill of Rights adopted shortly after the Constitution protected against the excesses of democracy as well as monarchy or any other mode of authority.
One of my concerns in our day, is that the idea of freedom being touted by some who count themselves as conservatives, has become so centralized. They seem to believe that if any law is passed by a freely elected congress, then the result is that the people are free, and the law enacted an expression of that freedom. We remain in that opinion a nation of law. But in reality, we are fast becoming a nation of law(s). That is a huge distinction. A nation of law has a core tradition regarding acknowledged right and wrong human behavior. It seeks to maintain that core tradition without determining every detail of life. That government seeking to regulate every detail of life is in nature totalitarian. When a nation of law exists, it exists to uphold that basic understanding of right and wrong. When a nation of laws takes its place, the authorities believe they must codify all of life until every potential human act is regulated and licensed. A nation of law exists to maintain freedom; a nation of laws to form a view of law that establishes the proper behavior and practice for every human situation. I fear that this is the growing tendency in our American democracy. Various interest groups and idealists imagine the good that would come if only all would practice in accordance with their ideals. Politicians courting a coalition to give them power, move to gain their vote, and in turn reward them with a law enacting their position. It is enacted as part of the imagined public interest. Such laws violate the original understanding of law and freedom. But freedom has become the power to legislate in accordance with the whims of the latest ruling coalition. So, a law is passed regulating all smoking in public, because clearly smoking is not healthy for those who smoke or those near those smoking. The enactment of laws has become the goal of the society rather than the protection of freedoms in conjunction with a vaguely acknowledged universality of law. The consequence as we move from being a nation of law to a nation of laws, is that we cannot imagine a portion of life not covered by a regulation. The idea that the whole smoking issue could have been peacefully worked out, by allowing restaurant owners to establish “smoking” or “nonsmoking” restaurants, where those who participated in employment or use of the restaurant would accept the consequences for themselves becomes an option no longer to be accepted, for the people (collective and vaguely represented by their legislatures) must be allowed to speak. That seems to me to be where we are arriving in our nation of law or laws.
One of the beauties of the Constitution, is that in addition to a few basic principles that each participant in the convention would recognize as being based in reason, there was also a large amount of the Constitution that simply was forced to be worked out as men pursuing to protect their state interests sought an agreement with other men representing their different state interests. As such, it was the political equivalent of an Adam Smith’s hidden hand. The representatives of Delaware made agreements with the representatives of Connecticut and Virginia with which all the various delegates could assent. It was the bartering of varied state interests that helped insure a working agreement. In some ways, the libertarian can take pride in American constitution as an example of how men with real interests as representatives of varied state interests would benefit their society by making agreements based on their interests peacefully pursued without violating the rights of others.
I always appreciate your articles and look forward to soon picking up and reading your work with Bill Bonner on Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets.
Sincerely yours,
Dan McDonald
I read with interest your article ” Mr. Paul goes to Washington” and agree with both of you. I have made studies of our government and find that we are a Capitalist Oligarchy instead of the Republic given us by our Founders. I know you are busy but I think you might appreciate my book “Wake-up Call To an Incurious America” This book discusses corruption of our Constitution and goes into great detail about how our economic policies are destroying our country. If you are iterested go to https://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=38991 and read the Executive Summary excerpt from the book. Although politicaly incorrect the statements regarding economics are absolute fact and a website http://www.wakeup.truthinourtime.org/ contains both data and mathematical proof of the statements. The statement may surprise you. The book may soon be on the market at a much lower price. In the meantime if you are interested I can provide a PDF copy of the interior galley proof.
Please read if possible. Thank you.
VLB
Lila:
1. Good blog at http://www.mindbodypolitic.com/. However I dispute the ˜destined to fall” 9-11 comment. Even the photo in your blog shows the horizontal puffs from explosions that cut beams below each floor as it fell. I know physics and materials. It was controlled demo!! How ? I have a few ideas.
I paste below my new column on ˜War Lies”
Regards, Dave
Published Mon. SEP 10, 2007 Wisconsin State Journal http://www.madison.com
(The Wisc. State Journal is a regional daily newspaper)
Wars and the lies that start them
By David Redick
Our presidents, and their complicit henchmen, have lied us into every war since the revolution in 1776.
Their real reasons have not been legal, constitutional, or politically acceptable, so they invent one or more false reasons that they can “sell ” to the people.
Sadly, most people believe the lies, and proudly support them as “wars for defense. ” They can ‘t imagine that our leaders would be so evil as to spend the lives of our troops to gain their hidden political and economic goals for Empire-USA.
The secret plan of Bush and his gang is to: 1) Take over all oil in the Middle East so we don ‘t have to share it with China and India, and 2) Defend Israel at any cost. Control of oil was the hidden reason for the Balkans, Afghan, and Iraq wars.
Iran is their next target.
The war drums are beating in Washington to justify bombing Iran, so this is a good time to consider whether our leaders are lying again. Here are the facts on how we got into a few major wars. Each one could be a book, so please forgive the brevity.
War of 1812
Lies: In 1812, Congress declared war on England based primarily on their kidnapping
( “impressment “) of our sailors at sea. Truth: To drive England out of North America and get southern land.
Mexican-American War
Lies: Fight to defend our Texas border with Mexico. Truth: We invaded to expand, and took the northern half of Mexico, now our entire Southwest region.
Civil War
Lies: Fight to end slavery and preserve the union. Truth: The South seceded due to economic abuse by the North. Slavery was ended later (but only in Southern states).
Spanish-American War
Lies: Spain blew-up the U.S. battleship Maine in Cuba ‘s Havana harbor. Truth: The accidental explosion was used to invade Cuba, and the Philippines.
World War I
Lies: Join Europe to “Make the World Safe for Democracy. ” Truth: Wilson was convinced to join by U.S. and European industrialists.
World War II
Lies: Defend the United States from unprovoked attacks by Japan. Truth: FDR wanted to help his pal Winston Churchill, so he poked Japan until he got his “incident. ”
Korean War
Lies: Defend America. Truth: Truman and the generals wanted a reason to have troops in the Far East area of our Empire.
Vietnam War
Lies: Johnson said Vietnam attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Truth: The United States didn ‘t want to lose the southeast Asia region, and its oil, to China.
Gulf War
Lies: To defend Kuwait from Iraq. Truth: Saddam was a threat to Israel, and we wanted his oil.
Balkans
Lies: Prevent Serb killing of Bosnians. Truth: Get the Chinese out of Eastern Europe and Caspian Sea areas so they couldn ‘t get control of the oil.
Afghanistan
Lies: The Taliban were hiding Osama. Truth: To build a gas/oil pipeline from the northern “…stan ” countries to a warm water port near Karachi.
Iraq
Lies: Stop use of WMDs, or bring democracy. Truth: Oil, defense of Israel, land for permanent bases and restore oil sales in the United States Dollar.
Possible Iran War
Lies: They almost have an atom bomb. Truth: Oil and defense of Israel.
Fight the Bush gang to stop their plans for war against Iran.
****************
Redick, of Madison, is president of http://www.Forward-USA.org.
Rereading Mr. Redick’s article above, I agree with some of those interpretations but a few of them are unfair characterizations, to my way of thinking.
<p>While it is true that Smoot-Hawley may have driven the Japanese to attack, what provoked the Nanking massacre by the Japanese?And while the US had an agenda in Korea, it was the North Koreans, at the instigation of the USSR who initiated the conflict.
It would be fairer to say that the US has been no different from any imperial state in acting in the pursuit of what it sees as its vital interests – except that as a democracy (well, a constitutional republic, but in the popular mind this is a democracy), those interests have to be larded over with propaganda that appeals to the masses.
US Empire is only one variety of the problem, the root of which is the almighty state.
Dear Ms. Rajiva,
I appreciated your insightful article on Reviving the Constitution (Sept. 11, LewRockwell.com). I’m an American residing in the United Arab Emirates and am saddened by the perceptions of America, based on the conduct of our government. Thank you for giving voice to the truth of what track the U.S. should be following.
Name deleted
Dear Mrs Rajiva:
I have read with much interest your various articles. I also look forward to reading your books. Allow me to point out that in your article about the constitution you fail to stress the difference between the nation and the state.
Keep up the good work.
MG
A reader takes me to task for liking the constitution:
LR Your point is well taken but I think I conceded it already.
And I think there is no slippery slope between an appeal and the use of force. Bach has universal appeal – I have yet to hear anyone using force to spread his music,
PL: I wasn’t suggesting that at all. Rather, I first pointed out that the US arrangement does NOT have universal appeal. Neither does Bach, incidentally, although you can find admirers of each everywhere. We may be disagreeing about language; to me, “universal appeal” means “only appeal found everywhere”, and you do find disagreement with each everywhere as well as admirers. (And if you don’t think Bach can be spread by force, you are unfamiliar with choirmasters.)
Then, separately, I pointed out that there was a slippery slope between BELIEVING that the appeal was universal, believing that the machinery itself was sufficient, and failing to make things work. There is no slippery slope between something that has moral authority and applying force; there is a slippery slope between leaving everything on autopilot and things going so far wrong that misguided people start applying force in its name. It’s the traditional “good men do nothing” problem.
LR: Of course, there are things to quibble over. I admit that the constitution is a flawed document but its words have enormous resonance.
PL: No, they don’t – UNLESS you have been brought up to them or happen to have a particular personal affinity for other reasons. For people like me, they reek of 18th century philosophes like Helvetius transmitting a simplistic Readers’ Digest version of Locke.
Yours sincerely,
P.M.L.
PML –
Long time (sadly) since I delved into 18th c philosophy but if my memories of Thomas Pangle and co. serve me right, Jefferson’s indebtedness to Locke came via Helvetius only partly (and, of course, Helvetius thought he was only extrapolating on Locke…) –
Jefferson departed from Helvetius in not accepting a utilitarian basis of morals..
Ms Rajiva,
I have just read your “Mr. Paul Goes to Washington” on LewRockwell.com. It was one of the most eloquent pieces I have read in a very long time. It was a very moving defense of the constitution.
Thank You,
Jay Jones
Pingback: anthony hopkins dvd